Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Europa on 19/07/2021 13:50:32
-
If you watch the video he clearly talks about the Universe being a powerful computer simulation, meaning that everything including us was programmed. Now I do not want to get into whether this is real or not, I just want to ask that if this were true, and Tyson says that it may be true, then we are the product of a great programmer who would fall into the vernacular of what God represents on the Earth. So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?
Note, I have attached the description of the video which is real and if you search this topic you will find that it is real no matter how silly that this sounds. That said if you find this ridiculous, please do not attribute that ridiculousness to me when I am not proposing this theory.
Search this in youtube to view video
Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
-
Hi.
I can't answer the main title question: Does atheist N dGT believe in God? I don't know, I'm not him.
I can talk a little about the rest of your post.
The simulation idea wasn't proposed by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Most would agree that Nick Bostrom's paper is one of the foundational documents, if not the principal origin of the newest version of the idea:
"Are you living in a simulation", Nick Bostrom, Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 52, No. 211, pp 243-255
I say "newest version" because that's what many people would argue that it is. We've only recently had computer technology and thus been able to articulate a discussion where terms like "a computer simulation" could be used. However, the idea is essentially that the world you (we) experience may not be real in the way you (we) may imagine it is, it could be more like a dream or imaginary world.
It's not especially "silly". I think most people have wondered what the world is really like, is it real, does it exist in places where you aren't looking or is it just created and made solid around you as you move about in it? Are you unique and the only real person in this world? etc. etc. Various civilizations have considered that our dreams may be another world of some kind, in which we can do certain things. So the origin of these sorts of ideas (is the world real?) probably predates recorded history.
Anyway, considering the computer simulation theory as it is at the moment - if you want to define god as someone or something that made you, then I suppose you could call that programmer god. Since you can also create a computer simulation of your own, does that make you god to some other simulations? Was your great programmer in his own turn programmed by some other programmer - some other god figure to the god figure? Is there any reason to call the programmer god at all - since they are no more godly than you are in any other way. Overall the computer simulation argument neither solves or creates many theological or philosophical questions. It just changes the terminology you might use when describing the same problems (but that's just my opinion).
Best wishes to you.
-
Hi.
I can't answer the main title question: Does atheist N dGT believe in God? I don't know, I'm not him.
I can talk a little about the rest of your post.
The simulation idea wasn't proposed by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Most would agree that Nick Bostrom's paper is one of the foundational documents, if not the principal origin of the newest version of the idea:
"Are you living in a simulation", Nick Bostrom, Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 52, No. 211, pp 243-255
I say "newest version" because that's what many people would argue that it is. We've only recently had computer technology and thus been able to articulate a discussion where terms like "a computer simulation" could be used. However, the idea is essentially that the world you (we) experience may not be real in the way you (we) may imagine it is, it could be more like a dream or imaginary world.
It's not especially "silly". I think most people have wondered what the world is really like, is it real, does it exist in places where you aren't looking or is it just created and made solid around you as you move about in it? Are you unique and the only real person in this world? etc. etc. Various civilizations have considered that our dreams may be another world of some kind, in which we can do certain things. So the origin of these sorts of ideas (is the world real?) probably predates recorded history.
Anyway, considering the computer simulation theory as it is at the moment - if you want to define god as someone or something that made you, then I suppose you could call that programmer god. Since you can also create a computer simulation of your own, does that make you god to some other simulations? Was your great programmer in his own turn programmed by some other programmer - some other god figure to the god figure? Is there any reason to call the programmer god at all - since they are no more godly than you are in any other way. Overall the computer simulation argument neither solves or creates many theological or philosophical questions. It just changes the terminology you might use when describing the same problems (but that's just my opinion).
Best wishes to you.
I believe that Tyson is on the simulation bandwagon because from a mathematical and gravitational standpoint that the universe can not be proven to exist as there is not enough mass to have gravitational expansion be possible, so they created dark matter. All that said dark matter can not be proven and is only real inside and equation that started out as wrong and dark matter is the fix. So this is just another theory that replaces dark matter with computer code.
What Tyson misses is that we are not in a computer, but that we are the computer. we were created of matter then walked away and ask where did we come from. In any instance intelligence like Tyson has, will infer God as life is actually a grand computer system that can not self generate
-
What does "admitted atheist" mean.
It's not a thing you "admit" to, it's a thing you rejoice in.
-
What does "admitted atheist" mean.
It's not a thing you "admit" to, it's a thing you rejoice in.
The anomaly is the Tyson says that he is an atheist and that now he is claiming that the universe was created, just as the creationist have always claimed.
So go figure. But it is good to know that Tyson now believes in creation
-
It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
But what is it a simulation of? And why?
-
When people didn't have computers, the universe was made of elephants and turtles. Then it became misty gauze and geared spheres, followed by an infinitely rigid aether of zero density with a few ballistic rocks flying around. At least those models had some predictive value, unlike the idea that everything is a pointlessly detailed simulation of itself.
-
It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
But what is it a simulation of? And why?
Watch the video where Tyson explains himself. In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity. So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.
-
The anomaly is the Tyson says that he is an atheist and that now he is claiming that the universe was created, just as the creationist have always claimed.
So... you somehow don't understand that the creator that he has in mind isn't God.
Would you like to think about that for a minute?
Then you will see there's no actual contradiction.
-
In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.
The best physicists begin by assuming that the universe does exist, and our job is to create mathematical models of how it works. If the model doesn't predict the observation (by an order of magnitude, in this case!) the model is wrong but you can't dismiss the observation.
-
In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter
Well that's wrong.
but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.
That's wrong too.
So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?
Why don't you email him and ask him if it is so important to you.
-
In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter
Well that's wrong.
but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.
That's wrong too.
So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?
Why don't you email him and ask him if it is so important to you.
I will be wrong at some juncture. You will never see this.
-
I will be wrong at some juncture. You will never see this.
You have been wrong repeatedly; we have seen it.
-
I will be wrong at some juncture. You will never see this.
Well there no such thing as 'gravitational expansion' and recession velocities exceeding c do not violate Relativity. So I'm going to have to disagree with you.
-
I will be wrong at some juncture. You will never see this.
Well there no such thing as 'gravitational expansion' and recession velocities exceeding c do not violate Relativity. So I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity. Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste. In the wake of this some are speculating that the universe is not real but simulated as physical laws would not govern a simulation, as a simulation would be governed by it's own parameters which as said can be whatever the programmer chooses.
Now I am not claiming this, just showing how ignorant some people are
-
I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.
-
I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.
I suppose in the theory that nothing is actually real, but it just goes to show how frustrated astrophysicist are with the theory of relativity completely failing at a universal scale. Seems for once we actually agree.
-
I suppose in the theory that nothing is actually real, but it just goes to show how frustrated astrophysicist are with the theory of relativity completely failing at a universal scale. Seems for once we actually agree.
Well, thank you.
-
I know this is a waste of time, you'll never listen...
Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity.
That is simply false. The expansion of the universe was accepted before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to dark energy not dark matter.
Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.
I don't know where you got the '5 times' number but that doesn't matter. There is no prohibition in relativity for the recession velocity of distant galaxies to exceed c as I said. Relativity says that mass cannot move through space faster than c and the recession velocity is not due to distant galaxies moving through space it is due to the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxies.
Like I said this is falling on deaf ears, so you will of course continue to wallow in your ignorance - c'est la vie.[shrug]
-
It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
But what is it a simulation of? And why?
Watch the video where Tyson explains himself. In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity. So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.
The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world" with timestamp on 4 Jul 2017.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - like Elon Musk - says it's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulation, explaining that with the computing power to create worlds - that can create worlds, that then create more worlds - the likelihood that we're living in the "real world" is, at best, slim.
Here is his update of what he believes.
The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" with timestamp on 18 Mar 2020.
Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice are here (or are they?) to investigate if we're living in a simulation. We explore the ever-advancing computer power and how that impacts the simulation hypothesis. Chuck wonders if a simulation universe has anything to do with us not being able to travel at the speed of light. You'll learn about Bayesian statistics. Lastly, Neil tells us how he was ready to embrace the simulation hypothesis until he came across a certain idea that changed his mind.
-
I know this is a waste of time, you'll never listen...
Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity.
That is simply false. The expansion of the universe was accepted before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy. The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to dark energy not dark matter.
Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.
I don't know where you got the '5 times' number but that doesn't matter. There is no prohibition in relativity for the recession velocity of distant galaxies to exceed c as I said. Relativity says that mass cannot move through space faster than c and the recession velocity is not due to distant galaxies moving through space it is due to the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxies.
Like I said this is falling on deaf ears, so you will of course continue to wallow in your ignorance - c'est la vie.[shrug]
Dark energy is derived from dark matter in the minds of people who invent new numbers to fix their useless equations. Simplified as we know 2 + 2 = 4 however the cosmological constant runs more like 2 + 0.3 = 4 so they invent new numbers to make the equation correct. LOL Try that on math test and see how you are graded. You believe what you are told like an ant follows the ant in front of it, furthermore what you are believing is not fact but theory (fiction) in the first place, so all of your arguments are based on fiction.
All that said you may reveal how Einstein who proved that nothing can travel faster than light was correct when multiple things are doing that now, most notably distant galaxies?
Tyson has fixed the error by claiming that there are no galaxies, that is like answering a question by saying that there is no question
-
It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
But what is it a simulation of? And why?
Watch the video where Tyson explains himself. In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity. So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.
The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world" with timestamp on 4 Jul 2017.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - like Elon Musk - says it's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulation, explaining that with the computing power to create worlds - that can create worlds, that then create more worlds - the likelihood that we're living in the "real world" is, at best, slim.
Here is his update of what he believes.
The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" with timestamp on 18 Mar 2020.
Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice are here (or are they?) to investigate if we're living in a simulation. We explore the ever-advancing computer power and how that impacts the simulation hypothesis. Chuck wonders if a simulation universe has anything to do with us not being able to travel at the speed of light. You'll learn about Bayesian statistics. Lastly, Neil tells us how he was ready to embrace the simulation hypothesis until he came across a certain idea that changed his mind.
I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?
-
I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?
People that talk with their hands only do so because they can't stand each others breath.
-
I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?
People that talk with their hands only do so because they can't stand each others breath.
Actually the hand movements likely help the mover find the next word in the lie.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/200904/why-do-we-move-our-hands-when-we-talk-i-finding-the-right-words#:~:text=People%20who%20are%20lecturing%20or,people%20to%20find%20a%20word.
Still other gestures help us to keep the beat of our speech. People who are lecturing or giving a formal speech will often move their hands in time with what they are saying. These hand gestures play a role in coordinating the timing and pacing of what is being said.
One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.
-
One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.
Like if someone is talking to you and you start picking your nose that is a hand gesture to indicate you're not listening.
-
One interesting role of gestures is that they can help people to find a word. We all have had the experience of knowing what we want to say, but not being able to find the word. This kind of tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon can be quite frustrating at times.
Like if someone is talking to you and you start picking your nose that is a hand gesture to indicate you're not listening.
Actually it is an IQ indicator
-
Actually it is an IQ indicator
Do you mean it shows the other person how talented you are?
-
I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?
Do you still think that he believes in God?
-
Actually it is an IQ indicator
Do you mean it shows the other person how talented you are?
If someone picked their nose in front of you, your comment would be. Cool can I have some.
-
I wonder if either of those men could actually talk if they could not move their hands?
Do you still think that he believes in God?
Absolutely as he defined God precisely. See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God. Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from. So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond
-
Absolutely as he defined God precisely. See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God. Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from. So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond
Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?
-
Absolutely as he defined God precisely. See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God. Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from. So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond
Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?
There is no 50 percent chance, as the truth is always 100 percent true whether it is known or not. Since we do not know people like Tyson take advantage and write books based on nonsense like Hawking wrote that nothing can escape from a black hole, then later he claimed that he was wrong. So Hawking and Tyson are not wrong or correct, they are just children speculating where they came from as children will do
-
Absolutely as he defined God precisely. See those who believe in God accept that they were created by God. Tyson says that God created simulations, he just frames God as a programmer, the faithful believe that God created a simulations that walked away scratched their heads and ask, where did I come from. So we could be termed simulations and Tyson believes that the simulations were created and clearly Tyson is not referencing Darwin's pond
Have you accounted for 50% chance that we are not in a simulation? Doesn't it means that there is 50% chance that God doesn't exist?
Do you believe that there is a 50 percent chance that Tyson is right, and if so how do you calculate this? or are you just believing what you see and hear
-
Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.
No, they aren't.
I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.
Exactly the same comments can be made about the traditional "God".
And the essence of Neil De Grasse Tyson's comment is that you can equate the two.
So, if you believe in a simulation, you believe in a thing which he chooses to label as God.
Setting aside the question of how we might know if this is a simulation or not, the view that God is a computer programmer is not the same as the view that God is a bearded man in the sky who is far too interested in your private life.
So it may be true that The Pope and N de G T both say "I believe in God"- but the Gods they believe in are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.
I could name my neighbour's cat "God" and claim that I believe in "God"; but I'd still be an atheist.
Naming a hypothetical computer program (or programmer) "God" is much the same thing as relabelling the cat.
-
Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.
No, they aren't.
I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.
Exactly the same comments can be made about the traditional "God".
And the essence of Neil De Grasse Tyson's comment is that you can equate the two.
So, if you believe in a simulation, you believe in a thing which he chooses to label as God.
Setting aside the question of how we might know if this is a simulation or not, the view that God is a computer programmer is not the same as the view that God is a bearded man in the sky who is far too interested in your private life.
So it may be true that The Pope and N de G T both say "I believe in God"- but the Gods they believe in are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.
I could name my neighbour's cat "God" and claim that I believe in "God"; but I'd still be an atheist.
Naming a hypothetical computer program (or programmer) "God" is much the same thing as relabelling the cat.
Again believers believe that they were created by God. God is just the name of the creator, other names are Yahweh, or Allah. The name is not of consequence but a creator is needed, Tyson is now accepting this but he chooses to view his God as a programmer. I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA that did not create itself in a pond. Tyson now agrees with me, you do not have too.
-
I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
-
Again believers believe that they were created by God.
Yes, but by a particular God.
For example, many think they were created by a God who took 7 days to do the job.
That's not what Tyson believes.
So his agreement with them is rather minimal.
-
I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
Yes, however I am also sure that humans are currently engineering new types of DNA to function on Mars, as God once did here.
-
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
Yes
So , you are sure that Tyson is wrong, and therefore should not believe in God.
(Because his only "reason" for "belief" is something that you are sure is wrong.)
Meanwhile, in various bits of the world, people are killing each other because their invisible friend wants to be worshipped on a different day of the week or some such.
-
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
Yes
So , you are sure that Tyson is wrong, and therefore should not believe in God.
(Because his only "reason" for "belief" is something that you are sure is wrong.)
Meanwhile, in various bits of the world, people are killing each other because their invisible friend wants to be worshipped on a different day of the week or some such.
Actually I believe that Tyson is correct in a manner of speaking. See Tyson talks about computing power in the future but then he makes the error of imagining that power in the present with simulations running on hard drives. What I see is that all machines break, this includes all computers that either break or get old and outdated. Now when God created his computer it walked away and reproduced itself slightly better than the original. So you are a computer, DNA built you and your CPU uses the same electricity as the one that you are typing from now, only your brain uses far less voltage and produces it's own electricity. So you and Tyson are both computer simulations that walked away, and are yet to become obsolete because of Gods engineering
Tyson just came to God and has his own way of admitting such
-
I believe that Tyson is correct
he makes the error of imagining that...
Choose one.
What I see is that all machines break, this includes all computers that either break or get old and outdated.
I see an internet which started with some "first" computer.
That computer is no longer here.
But the internet is.
It's interesting that your theology depends on not knowing about hot-swappable disk drives and RAID arrays.
-
I believe that Tyson is correct
he makes the error of imagining that...
Choose one.
What I see is that all machines break, this includes all computers that either break or get old and outdated.
I see an internet which started with some "first" computer.
That computer is no longer here.
But the internet is.
It's interesting that your theology depends on not knowing about hot-swappable disk drives and RAID arrays.
You are making the same mistake as Tyson by trying to reconcile technology that we will have in another billion years that God already had billions of years ago with the feeble wired systems of today.
LOL do you really think God makes use of junk made in a chinese sweat shop. Really he invented his own.
OKEEDOKEE
-
You are making the same mistake
No
I am pointing out that even today's technology does not suffer from the problem you think it does.
As I said, it seems part of the problem here is your reading comprehension.
-
You are making the same mistake
No
I am pointing out that even today's technology does not suffer from the problem you think it does.
As I said, it seems part of the problem here is your reading comprehension.
LOL none of the first storage systems are even viable anymore. So it is you who seems unaware, the fact is that todays technology is tomorrows junk, it must be reinvented and recycled. God drops off his computers and they reproduce and with every generation get better, until they go looking for God in the heavens, and when they find him their is a big family reunion, of sorts.
-
You are making the same mistake
No
I am pointing out that even today's technology does not suffer from the problem you think it does.
As I said, it seems part of the problem here is your reading comprehension.
LOL still viable right?
Do you need a time out?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9b/d1/f5/9bd1f543c134172c964351232f11e185.jpg)
-
LOL none of the first storage systems are even viable anymore.
And yet the internet carries on.
Because, unlike you, the people who built it were clever enough to understand how you can maintain a system while replacing every bit of that system.
Don't feel too bad, you are in good company.
Trigger didn't understand it either.
-
LOL none of the first storage systems are even viable anymore.
And yet the internet carries on.
Because, unlike you, the people who built it were clever enough to understand how you can maintain a system while replacing every bit of that system.
Don't feel too bad, you are in good company.
Trigger didn't understand it either.
Let me know when the first self aware computer that can mate and improve itself is invented?
Nope you can't do that can you, because God already did that.
PS. Bye the way, the internet is about to be quantum entangled which will mean that the search result will always be present from anywhere on Earth or beyond before your finger leaves the enter key as the answer was actually there before you ask.
RAID whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
Nope you can't do that can you, because God already did that.
Don't be silly, that was evolution- or the flying spaghetti monster; take your pick..
-
Nope you can't do that can you, because God already did that.
Don't be silly, that was evolution- or the flying spaghetti monster; take your pick..
Not according to modern physics that now claims that the universe and everything in it was created.
You may call your Mom if you need
-
Not according to modern physics that now claims that the universe and everything in it was created.
Nope.
Though, by that same physics- it is entirely possible, indeed, very likely, that other intelligent life evolved before we did.
-
Not according to modern physics that now claims that the universe and everything in it was created.
Nope.
Though, by that same physics- it is entirely possible, indeed, very likely, that other intelligent life evolved before we did.
According to Tyson our universe and everything in it was created.
Including Darwin's magical pond
LOL
-
According to Tyson
You may have missed this, but he isn't God.
Tyson may be mistaken- in fact, you say he is.
So you can not rely on his views to support anything, can you?
I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
Yes, ....
You think that you are real DNA.
He apparently thinks you are simulated DNA.
Only one of you could be right.
You could, of course, both be wrong- which is more likely.
-
There is no 50 percent chance, as the truth is always 100 percent true whether it is known or not.
How do you know that your version of God is 100 percent true?
-
Do you believe that there is a 50 percent chance that Tyson is right, and if so how do you calculate this? or are you just believing what you see and hear
The 50% Tyson was talking about comes from two possible states regarding the simulation. First is that we are living in the real world. The other is that we are living in the last simulation in the making.
According to information theory, 1 bit of information reduces the uncertainty by a half. If there's no other information is available, that 50% is where we're left at.
-
According to Tyson
You may have missed this, but he isn't God.
Tyson may be mistaken- in fact, you say he is.
So you can not rely on his views to support anything, can you?
I accept that I am the product of a molecular computer code called DNA
Are you sure that you are not a simulation of that DNA which has been programmed to think DNA is real?
Yes, ....
You think that you are real DNA.
He apparently thinks you are simulated DNA.
Only one of you could be right.
You could, of course, both be wrong- which is more likely.
His theory has no evidence to support it at all, my DNA is however real. LOL this clown thought that he had a book deal in the making with this nonsense, but people laughed just too hard, which is why he ended up on the Larry King show
-
There is no 50 percent chance, as the truth is always 100 percent true whether it is known or not.
How do you know that your version of God is 100 percent true?
Of course you don't know. There's too much uncertainty involved. There are many gods believed by humans alone. It's even possible that other hominids had their own version of gods.
-
There is no 50 percent chance, as the truth is always 100 percent true whether it is known or not.
How do you know that your version of God is 100 percent true?
Of course you don't know. There's too much uncertainty involved. There are many gods believed by humans alone. It's even possible that other hominids had their own version of gods.
What do Gods have to do with the truth? Are you saying that people create the truth in their minds?
-
What do Gods have to do with the truth?
Strewth!
Are you saying that people create the truth in their minds?
I'm saying that people created God in their minds.
-
What do Gods have to do with the truth?
Strewth!
Are you saying that people create the truth in their minds?
I'm saying that people created God in their minds.
God is a scientific necessity, which is why Tyson is claiming that God created the universe.
-
God is a scientific necessity, which is why Tyson is claiming that God created the universe.
Can we scientifically predict God's behavior?
-
God is a scientific necessity
Which one?
There are thousands of the buggers.
-
God is a scientific necessity
Which one?
There are thousands of the buggers.
Any one or more of them. See the name is not important whether it be God, Yahweh or Allah. The name is not important what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond.
-
what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond.
So, you are saying that the important thing is that we can't do an experiment that started before we knew what the experiment was about.
That is absurd.
Stop being Europa.
-
Any one or more of them.
Ok, Let's go with Ares
"When Ares does appear in myths, He typically faces humiliation"
from wiki.
Can you show the proof that He exists?
-
The name is not important what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond.
What did god create DNA from?
Was it created from nothing?
Was it created from pure energy?
Was it created from fundamental particles in a single step?
Was it created from simpler molecules in many consecutive steps?
-
If you watch the video he clearly talks about the Universe being a powerful computer simulation, meaning that everything including us was programmed. Now I do not want to get into whether this is real or not, I just want to ask that if this were true, and Tyson says that it may be true, then we are the product of a great programmer who would fall into the vernacular of what God represents on the Earth. So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?
Note, I have attached the description of the video which is real and if you search this topic you will find that it is real no matter how silly that this sounds. That said if you find this ridiculous, please do not attribute that ridiculousness to me when I am not proposing this theory.
Search this in youtube to view video
Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world
If you plug the speed of light into the three equations for the theory of Special Relativity, mass no longer exists and space-time becomes discontinuous. The simulation, called our material and inertial universe, breaks down. This brings us back to the original program from which this simulation, called our universe, began.
At the speed of light, space and time as we know it, are no longer connected as space-time. One can now move in time without the constraints of space and/or move in space without the constraints of time. This matrix allows infinite possibilities in terms of simulation. Space-time and mass set very specific limits within the infinite matrix of simulation.
If we could move in time without space limitation and move in space without time limitations we get a situation of infinite possibilities, similar to consciousness and the human imagination. The imagination can pretend/simulate things that are not possible in physical reality, due to the constraints of space-time and mass. The imagination can ignore these and use the larger simulation matrix.
I can fly to the sun, sun bath in its core, and get a good tan, in less than a second in my imagination. This would violate all the laws of physics connected to space-time and mass. But it can be simulated in the imagination; fantasy simulation. It would require time and space not be connected, except in unique ways that make this specific simulation possible; new laws of physics would apply that allow this.
Alternately, to develop a simulation of our current universe, from this matrix of infinite possibilities, one would need to place limits on these infinite possibilities, and make it finite, but in a specific way. For example, if I had a building simulation program, I would set limits by clicking on bridge simulations, so I can ignore all other building considerations that are possible with the program, but not needed. I have built the BB from scratch in other posts.
Interestingly, if we could move in time without the constraint of space we would know everything everywhere at any point in time, simultaneously. This is traditionally called omniscience. If we could move in space without the constraint of time we would be omnipresent. This matrix has been known from ancient times, and was called God.
Science appears to have circled back to its roots. I got there a little bit ahead of the curve all without assess to space-time resources. I clicked on others forms of simulation and used my imagination to get there from the servant entrance. It is good to see others catching up.
-
The imagination can pretend/simulate things that are not possible in physical reality
Yes, I know, like in your imagination your posts make sense.
-
If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?
-
Hi.
If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?
This thread has been moved around the forum and related posts are spread all over the place. I'm completely lost about what the current state of the discussion is. However, I'm willing to try and answer the question anyway. I mean, why not?
The simulation argument is generally attributed to Nick Bostrom. It was presented as a Philosophy paper in about 2003.
The version that Tyson has discussed is loosely based on this.
In Nick Bostrom's original version it was implied that there was an original universe where computer technology has been developed. It was then thought that there would be interest in history, ancestry and running scientific simulations. As a result of this, some simulations would be constructed. There then seems to be a few more assumptions made. For example, that computer power develops at a rate similar to that we observe today. People may have heard of Moore's law, which implies exponential development of computational power - however an exact version of this is not really required. Anyway, the main hypothesis of the original paper is that there would be a lot of these simulations running. These are basically simulations of the original universe at earlier times or under specific situations that the original scientists or computer programmers wanted to study. Anyway, there should be a lot of these and eventually the entities (people) in those simulations develop their own computer technology and run their own simulations.
Based on a raft of assumptions, Nick Bostrom calculates the probability of various things.
What is it a simulation of? Something based on the original universe (which for the sake of argument could be considered as the real one).
Does it include a simulation of itself? Sometimes. Left to run long enough and under the right conditions, the entities in the simulation could run their own simulations on their own computer technology. However, there may be some simulations where the situation is slightly different, for example where an intelligent species annihilates itself before creating their own simulations etc. Based on the assumptions of the original paper, similar to evolution as understood in the Life Sciences, simulations that terminate will not reproduce and will therefore be finite in number. Meanwhile, those that do or will ultimately develop their own simulations will vastly outnumber the others.
What does it all mean? Open to debate. The general idea is that we are most likely to be in a simulation and the originators of that simulation were themselves in a simulation and....etc. etc. there could be a long chain of simulations that created more simulations. Like the idea of the world being supported on a turtle who in turn stands on a turtle, before you ask what that turtle stands on, someone will tell you "it's turtles all the way down".
It's been several years since I looked at Nick Bostrom's paper, so I may have misrepresented quite a lot of it. I don't suppose that will matter. This is now in the new theories section anyway.
Best wishes to everyone.
-
The simulation argument is generally attributed to Nick Bostrom. It was presented as a Philosophy paper in about 2003.
I can see where this is a fun philosophy question, I fail to see how this is physics.
Maybe the universe is a simulation. Maybe God created the universe. There is no evidence of either of those.
-
It was presented as a Philosophy paper
GIGO as usual, then.
-
Hi alanaclaverd and origin.
Please don't base your opinions entirely on my synopsis. As I mentioned, it has been a while since I looked at this.
The original paper seems to be available here:
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
It's about three pages ignoring references, cover pages etc. I wouldn't want to put the paper in a bad light unfairly.
Here's some of the abstract:
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
None the less, I tend to agree with the spirit of what you've both said. It could change what you think the universe and the nature of reality is - but it does not necessarily change how it works. Physics still seems to be there for discovery.
I think it became of interest to Physicist's for two reasons:
(i) It uses some Mathematics (probability) to obtain a conclusion.
(ii) Pop. Sci. has wanted to know the philosophy behind the science. Also films like "the Matrix" were quite popular back then.
I'm not sure why Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to be discussing the idea currently. Personally, I think there are better discussions by Robin Ince and Brian Cox in the book (originally a radio show) called "The infinite Monkey cage". A few celebrities like Elon Musk mention the idea from time to time and apparently he's popular at the moment. A few other people link this simulation argument with other theories like the "Fermi paradox" and the idea of a "great filter" that may lie in front of us.
On the positive side. There is no need to be too rigid in trying to draw any line that separates any one field from any other. This paper crosses many fields like computer science, philosophy, physics and mathematics. That's not a bad thing.
Best wishes to everyone.
-
The original paper
is by Bostrom, who is actually talking about the simulation argument. Bostrom is referenced by Tyson who seems to completely misunderstand the paper and is instead proposing a virtual reality argument. The evidence for and against is completely different for the two and it is very important to understand the difference.
A simulation is autonomous and any system (human) simulated would be under its own control.
A VR is an artificial steam of sensory data sent to a non-simulated consciousness, much like a video game. Any human thus simulated would not be under its own control, but would rather simply be an avatar for the offsite consciousness. Bostrom is not talking about a VR setup, but at times he makes mistakes that only apply to VR.
Here's some of [Bostrom's] abstract:
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage
'Posthuman' isn't defined anywhere in the paper. What does that mean? We'll call ourselves human until we isolate groups of us long enough that said groups evolve separately into incompatible species. It doesn't mean 'running these simulations' because option 2 talks about non-simulating post-humans. The argument seems to assume that those running the simulation (the 'god') are (or were) human, and more in particular, exist in a realm with similar geometry and physics to that which we know here, something I find less than probable.
If this proposition is asserted to be 'very likely', then it seems that it is very likely that we're not thus simulated since this required state of 'posthuman' is not likely to be achieved.
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
It seems that our universe is already a mathematical construct, and a rather simple one at that where the same physics works everywhere. I'm not sure how instantiation on a different plane of a given set of physics rules is any different than the original. Alan seems to cut to the chase:
If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of?
Indeed. If I am perfectly simulated, how is myself and the thing simulated not the same thing? Why is instantiation necessary for either case? A perfect description of me that leads to the perfect simulation is sufficient for all states to be defined, and thus no hardware at all is necessary for those conscious states to be defined (assuming non-avatar consciousness). Bostrom totally misses this point since he goes on about processor speed, when even the slowest wooden touring machine would suffice.
And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?
The simulation obviously can either simulate lower technology, or just fake the results, as Bostrom suggests. Hence the old joke: Instead of buying a faster computer, just use your existing one to simulate the faster one.
Pop. Sci. has wanted to know the philosophy behind the science. Also films like "the Matrix" were quite popular back then.
Most pop stories (Matrix in particular) are VR, not simulation. Bostrom correctly makes no reference to such VR scenarios.
A few other people link this simulation argument with other theories like the "Fermi paradox" and the idea of a "great filter" that may lie in front of us.
Those topics refer to the first possibility: why we don't ever get to this 'posthuman' stage, whatever that is.
-
Hi everyone and thanks Halc.
I thought I'd make it clear, that this wasn't presented by me as a discussion topic originally.
On the positive side, you (Halc) have made a reasonable summary of the situation. The sad thing is it doesn't actually sound much better the way you summarised it.
The term "posthuman" has been discussed by Bostrom in another one of his papers (but I haven't done much more than glance at it for the definition of posthuman). I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. It seems to propose that a "posthuman" state is one where a significant augmentation of at least one ability held by current day human beings is possible (e.g. long and healthy life or an increase in reasoning and memory ability etc.).
Meanwhile, in one of the first uses of the term in the current paper (section III of "Are you living in a simulation") it qualifies the term as follows:
(.......) a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints.
Let's say there's only a little ambiguity in that definition. Meanwhile, I had always assumed it to mean one of the following:
(i) A state of civilization significantly after the current time.
or (ii) The point at which a consciousness can be implemented on what Bostrom refers to as a non-biological substrate, i.e. in computer technology or software running on suitable hardware.
- - - - - - - -
It's easier to criticise than to create. Let's admit that Bostrom presented an interesting idea and was also bold enough to work on something only mentioned in science fiction up to that point and build it into something formally presented as an academic paper.
Best wishes to everyone.
-
Mario gets self aware & conscious n grows a conscience.
" Can these dumb Owls & Ducks be a programmed simulation? "
Not Possible...8 bits all there is to the Universe.
What if Our universe was a screensaver running on some whizy kidz pc...wat if!
Prof Neil's belief of a Creator does Not make him Religious.
He's only a Believer.
Folks say their Unicorn is the Mightiest, Strongest & Only One True Unicorn.
It's just the Unicorn shape that's common...but all different colors.
If i Believe in a Neon Green Unicorn...& U believe in a Pearl White Unicorn...We both are irreligious fools for each other.
& Tyson is referring to a chrome plated metallic fire spitting dragon bot.
Must Thank the Heavens that Scientists aren't as divided n engrossed in hatred willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs.
PS - They do Unfortunately get blown away, but not for conversions sake or heavenly abodes or other goodie goodie stuff up there.